연구제안서 동료평가에서 학연이 평가결과에 미치는 영향 분석 -이공계분야를 중심으로- = A Study on the Relationship between School Ties on Peer Review in the Academic Areas of Natural Sciences and Engineering

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to empirically analyzing the impact of school ties between the evaluators and evaluatees on the results of research proposal peer review evaluations for the Korean national R&D projects. Specifically, the evaluation results of research proposal entries submitted between 2007 and 2011 for the General Researchers Support Project in the academic areas of natural science and engineering sponsored was analyzed in this study. This project was sponsored by the National Research Foundation of Korea. Empirical results of this study show that school ties have significant influence on evaluation results in the process of peer review in the areas of natural sciences and engineering.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박기범, "한국연구재단 연구사업의 과제평가자 확정체계 개선방안 연구" 한국연구재단 2011

2 한국연구재단 내부자료, "학술연구조성사업 만족도조사 결과보고서" 한국연구재단 2007

3 최영훈, "학술논문 공동저술 유형 분석: 한국행정학보(1989-2008) 기고논문을 중심으로" 한국행정학회 43 (43): 51-72, 2009

4 조만형, "연구과제 심사평가시스템의 한미 비교연구" 서울행정학회 15 (15): 2004

5 엄상현, "국내학위자와 국외학위자 간 연구지원금과 연구성과의 차이 분석: 전국 4년제 대학 교수들 간의 비교 관점에서" 경인행정학회 12 (12): 21-43, 2012

6 이무신, "과학기술과 평가: 동료평가의 이론과 실제" 피디 2000

7 Wennerås C., "Women, Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies" Taylor & Francis 46-52, 2008

8 Loonen, M. P., "Who Benefits from Peer Review? An Analysis of the Outcome of 100 Requests for Review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery" 116 (116): 1461-1472, 2005

9 Hood, C., "What Happens When Transparency Meets Blame-Avoidance?" 9 (9): 191-210, 2007

10 Cronin, B., "Vernacular and Vehicular Language" 60 (60): 433-433, 2009

11 Cooper, W. H., "Unfair Comparisons" 71 (71): 179-184, 1986

12 Ceci, S.J., "Understanding Current Causes of Women's Underrepresentation in Science" 108 (108): 3157-3162, 2011

13 Cooper, W. H., "Ubiquitous Halo" 90 (90): 218-, 1981

14 Lin, A. M., "US and non-US Submissions" 280 (280): 246-247, 1998

15 Weaver, R. K., "The Politics of Blame Avoidance" Brookings Institution 1987

16 Merton, R.K., "The Matthew effect in science" 159 (159): 56-63, 1968

17 Rees, T., "The Gendered Construction of Scientific Excellence" 36 (36): 133-145, 2011

18 Stephan, P. E., "The Economics of Science" 34 (34): 1199-1235, 1996

19 Bretz, R. D., "The Current State of Performance Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications" 18 : 321-352, 1992

20 Lee, M., "The Bias of Sighted Reviewers in Research Proposal Evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Blind and Open Review in Korea" 48 (48): 99-116, 2000

21 Bornmann, L., "Selection of Research Fellowship Recipients by Committee Peer Review. Reliability, Fairness and Predictive Validity of Board of Trustees' Decisions" 63 (63): 297-320, 2005

22 Horner, K. L., "Relation between Aging and Research Productivity of Academic Psychologists" 1 (1): 319-, 1986

23 Baser, O., "Publications over the Cademic Life-cycle:Evidence for Academic Economists" 1 (1): 1-8, 2004

24 Chubin, D.E., "Peerless Science: Peer Review and US Science Policy" SUNY Press 1990

25 Peters, D. P., "Peer-review Practices of Psychological Journals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again" 5 (5): 187-195, 1982

26 Shatz, D., "Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry" Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc 2004

27 Chubin, D., "Peer Review and Public Policy" 10 (10): 3-5, 1985

28 Zuckerman, H., "Patterns of Evaluation in Science:Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System" 9 (9): 66-100, 1971

29 Murphy, K. R., "Nature and Consequences of Halo Error: A Critical Analysis" 78 (78): 218-225, 1993

30 LaFollette, M. C., "Measuring Equity: The U.S. General Accounting Office Study of Peer Review" 16 (16): 211-220, 1994

31 Whittaker, R. J., "Journal Review and Gender Equality: A Critical Comment on Budden et al" 23 (23): 478-479, 2008

32 Gilbert, J. R., "Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process?" 272 (272): 139-142, 1994

33 Marsh, H. W., "Improving the Peer-review Process for Grant Applications: Reliability, Validity, Bias, and Generalizability" 63 (63): 160-, 2008

34 Fisicaro, S. A., "Implications of Three Causal Models for the Measurement of Halo Error" 14 (14): 419-429, 1990

35 Daniel, H. D., "Guardians of Science: Fairness and Reliability of Peer Review" VCH 1993

36 Lariviere, V., "Global Gender Disparities in Science" 504 : 211-213, 2013

37 Bornmann, L., "Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-analysis" 1 (1): 226-238, 2007

38 Tregenza, T., "Gender Bias in the Refereeing Process?" 17 (17): 349-350, 2002

39 Ross, J. S., "Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance" 295 (295): 1675-1680, 2006

40 Budden, A. E., "Double-blind Teview Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors" 23 (23): 4-6, 2008

41 Ernst, E., "Chauvinism" 352 : 560-, 1991

42 Lee, M., "Blind Review of Research Proposals in Korea: Its Effectiveness and Factors Affecting Applicant Detection" 45 (45): 17-31, 1999

43 Han, D., "An Empirical Study on the Effects of Blind Review in the General Researcher Program" National Research Foundation of Korea 2011

44 Oster, S.M., "Aging and Productivity among Economists" 80 (80): 154-156, 1998

45 Stephan, P.E., "Age and the Nobel Prize Revisited" 28 (28): 387-399, 1993